ArticleMethods and protocols2025
Comparative Analysis of a Rapid Quantitative Immunoassay to the Reference Methodology for the Measurement of Blood Vitamin D Levels.
Article in Methods and protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing natural sunlight indoors: sensor-regulated therapeutic approach to enhance vitamin D status in humans.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Smartphone App-Based Rapid 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D Test.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vitamin D is the only vitamin that is conditionally essential, as it is synthesized from precursors after UV light exposure, whilst also being obtained from the diet. It has numerous health benefits, with deficiency becoming a major concern globally, such that dietary supplementation has more recently achieved vital importance to maintain satisfactory levels. In recent years, measurements made from blood have, therefore, become critical to determine the status of vitamin D levels in individuals and the larger population. Tests for vitamin D have routinely relied on laboratory analysis with sophisticated equipment, often being slow and costly, whilst rapid immunoassays have suffered from poor specificity and sensitivity. Here, we have evaluated a new rapid immunoassay test on the market (Rapi-D & IgLoo) to quickly and accurately measure vitamin D levels in small capillary blood specimens and compared this to measurements made using the standard laboratory method of liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Our results show that vitamin D can be measured very quickly and over a broad range using the new method, as well as correlate relatively well with standard laboratory testing; however, it cannot be fully relied upon currently to accurately diagnose deficiency or sufficiency in individuals. Our statistical and comparative analyses find that the rapid immunoassay with digital quantification significantly overestimates vitamin D levels, leading to diminished diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency. The speed and simplicity of the rapid method will likely provide advantages in various healthcare settings; however, further calibration of this rapid method and testing parameters for improving quantification of vitamin D from capillary blood specimens is required before integration of it into clinical decision-making pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.